General : ESPN, BT, Euro, Premier and Sky Sports news

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Gavin-D

A court has ruled that BSkyB must make its Sky Sports 1 and 2 channels available on rival BT's YouView service

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29911809

Yes, heard this on Radio 5 tonight and they were speculating whether Sky would be forced to make all their channels available on all their platforms!

Sky is reported to be very unhappy. For us, it's good news that court judgements are beginning to follow the court of public opinion.

[telegramsam]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Yes, heard this on Radio 5 tonight and they were speculating whether Sky would be forced to make all their channels available on all their platforms!

Sky is reported to be very unhappy. For us, it's good news that court judgements are beginning to follow the court of public opinion.

Being forced to offer them to rivals is one thing but surely sky can still dictate how much they charge BT for them? Or will they have to charge the same as they do Virgin and Talk Talk?

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by telegramsam

Being forced to offer them to rivals is one thing but surely sky can still dictate how much they charge BT for them? Or will they have to charge the same as they do Virgin and Talk Talk?

The pricing is regulated too otherwise Sky would just do what it does with Atlantic and offer them at an unviable rate.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

The pricing is regulated too otherwise Sky would just do what it does with Atlantic and offer them at an unviable rate.

It's about time that the regulators insisted that all channels should be available on all platforms if requested and at within regulated rates.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

It's about time that the regulators insisted that all channels should be available on all platforms if requested and at within regulated rates.

You would probably end up with far fewer channels, a massive bureaucracy, many lawyers and higher subscription costs if you introduced such a system. Which is why no country has.

[denphone]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

It's about time that the regulators insisted that all channels should be available on all platforms if requested and at within regulated rates.

Here here to that.

---------- Post added at 13:07 ---------- Previous post was at 13:06 ----------

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

You would probably end up with far fewer channels, a massive bureaucracy, many lawyers and higher subscription costs if you introduced such a system. Which is why no country has.

Sorry Andrew but that's a bit of a limp excuse.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

You would probably end up with far fewer channels, a massive bureaucracy, many lawyers and higher subscription costs if you introduced such a system. Which is why no country has.

If it works for the premium channels, no need to be concerned about why it can't work for the basic channels as well.

Sky wouldn't have to pay for expensive lawyers, etc, if it just played by conventional rules of business instead of trying to screw their competitors and the general public.

[Anypermitedroute]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

If it works for the premium channels, no need to be concerned about why it can't work for the basic channels as well.

Sky wouldn't have to pay for expensive lawyers, etc, if it just played by conventional rules of business instead of trying to screw their competitors and the general public.

but it didnt Old boy how long did we have until we received the remaining skysports 3,4 and F1 in HD, its only recently we are on par with this offering.

I know people will point out the regulation is for 1 & 2 but you couldnt of got 3, 4 and F1 without subscribing to 1 & 2 (I excluded 5 as this post VM/Sky shaking hands and doing business)

[Bircho]

The issue is that the channel owner also controls the major distribution platform. Until these are split then it will always be a problem. One of the few things that worked in the telecom market was the split of Openreach from BT. Although BT still owns, they have to legally work at arms length.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by denphone

Here here to that.

---------- Post added at 13:07 ---------- Previous post was at 13:06 ----------



Sorry Andrew but that's a bit of a limp excuse.

I disagree and have explained that no other country in the world does it. There are other remedies to make the market more competitive eg you could split up platform owners from content owners, sell sports rights per platform etc.

---------- Post added at 16:19 ---------- Previous post was at 16:15 ----------

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

If it works for the premium channels, no need to be concerned about why it can't work for the basic channels as well.

Sky wouldn't have to pay for expensive lawyers, etc, if it just played by conventional rules of business instead of trying to screw their competitors and the general public.

Sky does play by the conventional rules of business. All companies use lawyers. Alas the business world's no longer the cosy club it may have been.

[harry_hitch]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

It's about time that the regulators insisted that all channels should be available on all platforms if requested and at within regulated rates.

Why? Should all mobiles be available on all networks? Should VM give everyone else their BB? Should Apple allow all MP3 player makers to use their technology? Should TiVo partner with every provider in the UK? Or is it just wrong for Sky to keep a few shows exclusive?

[Mad Max]

Originally Posted by harry_hitch

Why? Should all mobiles be available on all networks? Should VM give everyone else their BB? Should Apple allow all MP3 player makers to use their technology? Should TiVo partner with every provider in the UK? Or is it just wrong for Sky to keep a few shows exclusive?

The last bit........

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by harry_hitch

Why? Should all mobiles be available on all networks? Should VM give everyone else their BB? Should Apple allow all MP3 player makers to use their technology? Should TiVo partner with every provider in the UK? Or is it just wrong for Sky to keep a few shows exclusive?

It's the wrong analogy, Andrew. I can go and get broadband from other companies. I can choose which mobile network to use, and so on. However, there is only one Game of Thrones and I don't see why one company should be hogging all the rights so that a huge section of the TV audience can't see it.

I'm glad that you are happy with this situation, Andrew but most of us think it is unfair.

---------- Post added at 14:27 ---------- Previous post was at 14:23 ----------

Originally Posted by Anypermitedroute

but it didnt Old boy how long did we have until we received the remaining skysports 3,4 and F1 in HD, its only recently we are on par with this offering.

I know people will point out the regulation is for 1 & 2 but you couldnt of got 3, 4 and F1 without subscribing to 1 & 2 (I excluded 5 as this post VM/Sky shaking hands and doing business)

yes, but the only reason for the delay in getting these channels was that the regulation wasn't extensive enough. There's no reason at all why the HD and other Sky Sports channels could not have been covered also. It was sloppy of the regulators not to finish the job.

---------- Post added at 14:34 ---------- Previous post was at 14:27 ----------

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

I disagree and have explained that no other country in the world does it. There are other remedies to make the market more competitive eg you could split up platform owners from content owners, sell sports rights per platform etc.

---------- Post added at 16:19 ---------- Previous post was at 16:15 ----------

Sky does play by the conventional rules of business. All companies use lawyers. Alas the business world's no longer the cosy club it may have been.

No, they are stretching the boundaries to their own advantage.. They tried to kill off Virgin. They are not a nice company at all IMO. The Government should be ensuring that businesses play nice and for the benefit of the consumer as well as the shareholders. At the moment, the balance is not right.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

I'm glad that you are happy with this situation, Andrew but most of us think it is unfair.

I've never said that I'm happy, just that regulating all channels is not a good solution.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

No, they are stretching the boundaries to their own advantage. They tried to kill off Virgin. They are not a nice company at all IMO. The Government should be ensuring that businesses play nice and for the benefit of the consumer as well as the shareholders. At the moment, the balance is not right.

Trying to kill off the competition is conventional business, whether that's nice or not is an entirely different question. The UK government offering lots of small cable franchises as oppose to a single licence and Robert Maxwell's asset-stripping stewardship of Rediffusion probably harmed cable more than Sky has ever done.

[harry_hitch]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

It's the wrong analogy, Andrew. I can go and get broadband from other companies. I can choose which mobile network to use, and so on. However, there is only one Game of Thrones and I don't see why one company should be hogging all the rights so that a huge section of the TV audience can't see it.

I'm glad that you are happy with this situation, Andrew but most of us think it is unfair.[COLOR="Silver"]

Erm, as I much like you attributing this to Andrew, I am afraid the quote is mine. It is a fair analogy, you can get HBO stuff via nowtv as well and back seasons from many other places. So you don't need to go Sky directly. I know NowTV lines Sky's pockets but, it is another option. You can not get the bb speeds VM offer from anyone else (I don't think - happy to be corrected.) You could only get the iPhone on O2 for a long time, so it does happen in other worlds.

Please also tell me where I have said I am happy with the situation or where it is fair? I am simply saying Sky are doing nothing wrong as a business. It's just they are upsetting non-sky customers.